Whats the final verdict on magic

[dragoonbuster]

I guess you could do that. I'd rather have them be thaumaturgy-only with specialists using evothaum, though.

Having started a game w/o mental evocations and allowing them partway through, I agree with this ^ wholeheartedly.

[Lanir]

I don't think you'd have to worry about that particular juggle at all. The third law pretty much rules that sort of thing out. You could go for a defense on the grounds that your target wasn't human I guess but that's one where I could really see wardens extending it to include more than just mortals. In fact that's exactly what was going on in the discussion with Morgan about Toot-toot. Even if you decide the PC's aren't getting Lawbreaker feats the wardens obviously aren't thrilled with this approach so you could easily end up with a case where they're trying to take out former friendlies without resorting to the tools that got them into hot water to begin with.

There's also a horror story aspect to "the one that got away" stories in this case. If they don't take out someone they've given bad mental consequences to, especially if the target wasn't the nicest person to begin with, you could end up with some pretty gruesome events happening offscreen (but probably not to anyone the PC's think of as important, not without warning and/or a shot at stopping it). In addition to it's other problems, this is the sort of action that creates arch enemies.

[Mr. Death]

Allowing evocation to affect the mental stress track is very unbalanced with the way the game is built. This was drilled into me early, when my first GM ran a few test fight nights -- my valkyrie and magical mercenary against a pair of mages. All one of them had to do was take a supplemental action to leave the zone then use a zone mental attacks, and there was nothing I could've done to defend myself -- admittedly, neither of my characters had stellar mental defenses, but few non-wizards are going to have Discipline above 2 or 3, while a wizard's is going to be at least 4 or 5 without even factoring in specializations and foci.. Afterward, the GM agreed that it had been grossly unfair.

That said, the book series portrays mental magic as something that's really tough on both the target and the practitioner, and something not everyone can manage, so I don't even consider it a house rule to make it so they don't work except in special circumstances.

[Sanctaphrax]

The Laws don't really balance anything. They apply only to non-human targets, and the consequences for breaking them are mostly story-based. Taking the Power is mandatory, sure, but requiring Lawbreaker is basically just like requiring Refinement.

You can't use story consequences to balance out a mechanical problem. It doesn't address the actual issue (casters one-shotting everything) and it can mess up the game by turning the most powerful PC into the centre of the plot.

Even if your players decide never ever to violate the Laws, letting them use mental evocation attacks with full weapon rating is still a bad bad idea.

And anyway the mental attack spell that I see as standard, the mental sleep spell, apparently isn't Lawbreaking.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Even if they are possible within the current system, they are broken.  Virtually everyone who has GM'd a game with them says so.  If you want to use them, there are ways to do so that do not break the game.  Please see the above suggestions.

Outside of those, I do think Magic is still a little unbalanced.  I think you simply get too much with spellcasting.  Enchanted Items are extremely strong, especially defensively, if focused on.  Foci+Specializations+Skills all adding to a single roll is more than any thing else in the game, making magical attacks the strongest.  In play, it's often not too bad, but you tend to see well build spellcasters punching a few steps above their weight class.  I have a houseruled system that I think fixes all of this and have used in Fate Core versions of the game. 

That being said, I think the RAW system works pretty well.  Its balance issues are not horrid and can be planned around if they crop up.  We didn't really see a problem with them for quite a while, and some custom powers for the non-spellcasters fixed things nicely.  The fact that I like the system doesn't stop me from trying to improve it (especially to my groups' particular tastes), which is a sentiment that I think Sanctaphrax echoes.

[Mr. Death]

You can't use story consequences to balance out a mechanical problem. It doesn't address the actual issue (casters one-shotting everything) and it can mess up the game by turning the most powerful PC into the centre of the plot.

That's the thing, though -- in Fate in general, and Dresden in particular, the story is directly integrated into the mechanics via aspects and compels. The story and mechanics don't exist in a vacuum from each other -- they're meant to directly interact and affect one another. So the way I see it, using story consequences to balance mechanics is the intention.

[Sanctaphrax]

The fact that I like the system doesn't stop me from trying to improve it (especially to my groups' particular tastes), which is a sentiment that I think Sanctaphrax echoes.

Certainly.

That's the thing, though -- in Fate in general, and Dresden in particular, the story is directly integrated into the mechanics via aspects and compels. The story and mechanics don't exist in a vacuum from each other -- they're meant to directly interact and affect one another. So the way I see it, using story consequences to balance mechanics is the intention.

I don't exactly disagree, but I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. What I'm trying to say is that sending Wardens or other powerful threats at players who demonstrate excessive power won't actually fix anything.

When the rules are spitting out bad results and turning fight scenes into jokes, you should fix the rules. Rebuilding your game around those bad results will probably just make things worse.

It's true that Compels weigh story events against mechanical power. But that's not the same as trying to fix unbalanced rules with plot.

Does that make sense?

[Rossbert]

The trick for magic seems to just be heavy enforcement and encounter building.  Each problem has a recommended fix that works sometimes depending on the group and the compels issued.

Remember to give big evokers some situations you can't blast.

A powerful focus can be detected as such by characters in the supernatural world and will be looked on as poorly as people carrying big rifles in Starbucks.

Mental magic especially has lots of fun extra negative compels to be given even if it goes right, look to the mood and objective of those involved for ideas.

Shape shifting you might just have to rule on. Maybe don't let spell casting shape shifters move their spell skills ever and limit it to physical and social? To be honest this one hasn't come up with us.

The book strongly encourages spell casters to have an aspected weakness or blind spot, enforce it.

Don't be shy invoking their high concept for complications. It is why it is required for supernatural powers.

Also in my group the GM is pretty fond of using Wardens and while there is always the chance of going rogue it would take the game in an unwanted direction.

Just a few off the top of my head tips.

[Mr. Death]

I don't exactly disagree, but I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. What I'm trying to say is that sending Wardens or other powerful threats at players who demonstrate excessive power won't actually fix anything.

It's possible to be proactive about it -- instead of sending things after the fact, make compels that keep things interesting and keep them from simply owning every fight. I've gotten a lot of mileage out of compels along the lines of, "These are mortals you're up against -- if you take them out with a spell that's at more than 3 power, they'll die." ... Though oddly, all my players seem to interpret that as, "Don't use any magic on them at all," but it works out and makes things interesting.

When the rules are spitting out bad results and turning fight scenes into jokes, you should fix the rules. Rebuilding your game around those bad results will probably just make things worse.

Alternately, it means maybe you're not using all the rules correctly.

It's true that Compels weigh story events against mechanical power. But that's not the same as trying to fix unbalanced rules with plot.

Does that make sense?

It does, but I think you're still underselling how integral the plot and the gameplay are -- proactive compels can and will keep these things from overwhelming. Maybe other groups are different, but just the possibility of breaking one of the laws usually had my players step away from using magic entirely in favor of another solution.

Plus, look at the canon characters -- Harry's inability to do subtle stuff like veils is reflected entirely through his aspects. Going by pure power and mechanics, there's no reason Harry can't pull off a 5-shift veil that's much more effective than Molly's 3-shift veil. The game balances this with Harry's aspects and compelling them to effect.

You look at it as if using plot to fill in the holes is a cheat, a stop-gap, or a bandaid. What I'm trying to say is that is the way the game is designed to function.

From my perspective, it's as if you're saying that a car goes too fast. I'm saying that you can use the brakes to slow it down and you're calling it sloppy design and saying the car's accelerator should slow itself down instead.

As for it turning the plot to center on a particular character, the mechanic against that is talking to the players. Nothing is automatic, and nothing happens in a vacuum.

Rossbert also says some cool things which I just now realize I'm repeating, so I'll just second the rest of what he said.

[Sanctaphrax]

Those Compels all sound good and fun, but they don't really work as a way to keep overpowered characters in check. Fortunately they don't need to, since Harry and company aren't actually overpowered.

If Harry was in some way broken, the Compels to keep him from owning every fight would just give him an unfairly massive stack of Fate Points. You could "fix" that by making the Compels unreasonably harsh, but then you end up with a character who spends their FP refusing Compels and a game that's not much fun. Compels are not supposed to be bad things to get, and if they are then the game kinda breaks down.

Harry being NOT SO SUBTLE doesn't make him less powerful, mechanically speaking. It just makes him powerful in a different way. Less veils, more FP to spend. And that's a good thing, because it means Harry isn't making an optimization mistake by having that interesting Aspect.

You look at it as if using plot to fill in the holes is a cheat, a stop-gap, or a bandaid. What I'm trying to say is that is the way the game is designed to function.

From my perspective, it's as if you're saying that a car goes too fast. I'm saying that you can use the brakes to slow it down and you're calling it sloppy design and saying the car's accelerator should slow itself down instead.

No, the car goes at an appropriate speed. As long as you don't allow mental evocations or loose interpretations of thaumaturgy, I think magic is fair.

When there are real problems, though, plot is a poor way to fix them. Kinda like holding down the brakes while you accelerate because you're in the wrong gear, to continue the metaphor.

I have, in the past, tried using plot to keep mental evocations in check. It was a failure. And I've realized since then that it couldn't have succeeded.

[Lanir]

I have, in the past, tried using plot to keep mental evocations in check. It was a failure. And I've realized since then that it couldn't have succeeded.

Oh. I misunderstood I think. I mainly brought those up as a "this really shouldn't happen to begin with". It definitely wasn't a "this is how to ride the tiger; hold on really tight to that tail" message. Sounds like we were in agreement from the start because I can't imagine a game going well if the whole thing devolves into a Benny Hill chase scene with wardens and wizards.

[Mr. Death]

Those Compels all sound good and fun, but they don't really work as a way to keep overpowered characters in check. Fortunately they don't need to, since Harry and company aren't actually overpowered.

If Harry was in some way broken, the Compels to keep him from owning every fight would just give him an unfairly massive stack of Fate Points. You could "fix" that by making the Compels unreasonably harsh, but then you end up with a character who spends their FP refusing Compels and a game that's not much fun. Compels are not supposed to be bad things to get, and if they are then the game kinda breaks down.

Compels aren't supposed to be bad things, but they are, by nature, a limitation and complication. They do, in fact, represent a bad thing for the characters, if not for the player. They don't even have to be unreasonably harsh, they just have to make sense. If you have a player who considers complications to their character to always be bad, then there's a problem with the player. And as for that unfairly massive stack of fate points, Harry's the type of character who ends up spending fate points nearly as fast as he earns them. I imagine he doesn't have many more than 3 or 4 at any given time, because he has to spend them to make up for the limitations his compels are generating.

Harry being NOT SO SUBTLE doesn't make him less powerful, mechanically speaking. It just makes him powerful in a different way. Less veils, more FP to spend. And that's a good thing, because it means Harry isn't making an optimization mistake by having that interesting Aspect.

Less veils, more FP to spend, and -- importantly -- creates situations where he simply cannot use his single most powerful asset in fights. You can see, in the fiction, situations where his wizardly aspects are compelled to keep him from simply owning every fight. It's not that he's broken, it's that the mechanisms that exist to keep wizards in check do not translate into numbers in the game system.

Look at the scuffle he has in Heorot -- him not using magic is a compel against the laws and/or his inability to hold back. Otherwise, there wouldn't even have been a fight -- a handful of mortal thugs probably don't have more than a 2 in relevant physical skills if Harry was able to take them hand-to-hand; compare that to Harry's (by then) 4 or 5 in Discipline and what's probably an effective 7 or more in Conviction.

Hell, looking at the books, Jim spends a hell of a lot of time setting up circumstances to prevent Harry from solving the problem by blasting it with fire until it goes away (remembering the Laws when up against a mortal of some kind, facing something that's immune to his magic, having him outright drained of magic for half the book, taking away his fire magic entirely via mental trauma, killing him, depriving him of his foci). And in books like Changes or Skin Game, we see why -- a Harry who has access to all his power and with license to use it is pretty terrifying. And even in those books, he keeps Harry from simply owning the scenario by presenting him with things raw destructive power can't solve.

No, the car goes at an appropriate speed. As long as you don't allow mental evocations or loose interpretations of thaumaturgy, I think magic is fair.

Agreed -- what I'm saying is that the laws and compels are the game's own built-in mechanisms for limiting those things.

When there are real problems, though, plot is a poor way to fix them. Kinda like holding down the brakes while you accelerate because you're in the wrong gear, to continue the metaphor.

Cars don't accelerate because they're in the wrong gear -- you still have to hold the accelerator pedal. So this is sounding more like the driver's error.

I have, in the past, tried using plot to keep mental evocations in check. It was a failure. And I've realized since then that it couldn't have succeeded.

I've had the opposite experience -- the Laws have been more than enough to keep my players from using mental evocations, with one exception when a wizard mind-whammied a fae (the end result of which was, instead of a vanquished enemy, one who was now significantly unhinged with a major grudge against said wizard, which proved to be all kinds of fun).